Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-07 Thread PGC


On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 11:20:44 PM UTC+1 Brent Meeker wrote:



On 3/4/2024 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio  wrote:
 

*> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from a 
legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action.   It 
would have to come from Congress.*


Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify that the federal government, not 
the states, were the ultimate authority on who committed insurrection and 
who did not? Historically, unless the US Constitution said otherwise, the 
states were allowed to write their own election laws. For example, Wyoming 
gave women the right to vote as early as 1869, but the 19th amendment which 
gave all women in all the states the right to vote didn't become law until 
1920.  Another example would be the direct election of senators, in 1908 
Oregon law said senators would be determined by the popular vote, but that 
didn't become universal across the country until 1913 with the passage of 
the 17th amendment. 

 > *everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings aside, 
and did their job.*


It's absolutely outrageous that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself on 
this decision because his wife was part of the mob that attacked the 
capital on January 6, 2021. And I do NOT feel good about that because if 
that isn't a conflict of interest then what the hell is?  

There's something else I don't feel good about. When it comes to a criminal 
case that is likely to harm Trump, like deciding if a former president can 
be prosecuted for ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival, 


They won't make that ruling though, because then Joe can order the Secret 
Service Presidential Security detail to just off Donald Dump.

Brent


Yes, but this and/or slowdown can be exploited to demonstrate that immunity 
for the sake of future presidents being freed from frivolous prosecution 
must have constraints; and that without such constraints, say in 
legislation blocking climates, somebody has to prosecute anti-democratic 
moves/intentions without precedence. Otherwise why not do what Cuban said a 
couple of weeks ago? 

https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1741537504124162193?lang=en



*I wish Biden would come out and say  he wants Trump on the ballot. The 
14th doesn't apply.  Then thanks him for the playbook describing how to 
never leave office and the appreciation of knowing he can't be charged, no 
matter what he does.  And ends it with " My Fellow Americans , I'm not ever 
going to leave the White House and there is nothing you can do to me. "*
*Which would confirm exactly why SCOTUS will keep Trump off the ballots and 
why Trump will never get immunity.*

Anti-democratic threats have to be confronted with more boldness of this 
kind. People who threaten it are not eligible for office or voting. The TOE 
relevance to this list? In any theory or system, one cannot have agents 
benefiting from rights/powers/abilities (e.g. universal voting rights) to 
promote undermining of the same. In game theory as an example, this would 
be a participant in a scenario, that forgoes the use of their own 
abilities/powers. This renders the system/game futile for those 
participants. Therefore via any systemic thinking or rational implication, 
they are not true participants. In any universe, with any physics or TOE.

Interesting times. Authoritarians and absolutists everywhere bending 
everything every which way... and the rest thinking about how to act best 
in accordance with their principles. At some point, the rest may realize 
what's at stake and find the balls to execute Cuban like moves. It looks 
too slow and weak. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c1869d8-cc4a-4df2-9ddc-2b705835f6afn%40googlegroups.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-04 Thread Brent Meeker



On 3/4/2024 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio  wrote:

/> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot
point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this
kind of action.   It would have to come from Congress./


Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify thatthe federal government, 
not the states, were the ultimate authority on who committed 
insurrection and who did not?Historically, unless the US Constitution 
said otherwise, the states were allowed to write their own election 
laws. For example, Wyoming gave women the right to vote as early as 
1869, but the 19th amendment which gave all women in all the states 
the right to vote didn't become law until 1920.  Another example would 
bethe direct election of senators, in 1908 Oregon law said senators 
would be determined by the popular vote, but that didn't become 
universal across the country until 1913 with the passage of the 17th 
amendment.


> /everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings
aside, and did their job./


It's absolutely outrageous that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself 
on this decision becausehis wife was part of the mob that attacked the 
capital on January 6, 2021. And I do NOT feel good about that because 
if that isn't a conflict of interest then what the hell is?


There's something else I don't feel good about.When it comes to a 
criminal case that is likely to harm Trump, like deciding if a former 
president can be prosecuted for ordering seal team six to assassinate 
a political rival,


They won't make that ruling though, because then Joe can order the 
Secret Service Presidential Security detail to just off Donald Dump.


Brent

the Supreme Court is doing everything in its power to slow down the 
case until after the elections because after he becomes president 
again Trump will simply make that criminal case against him disappear.


Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential 
immunity 




But when it comes to a case that could help Trump like this one, then 
the supreme court  moves at warp speed. It's stuff like that gives 
hypocrisy a bad name.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


thb


Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's
constitutional to ignore the 14th amendment to the US
Constitutionand allow Trump to remain on the ballot, would it
also be constitutional to ignore the second amendment to the
Constitution?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3yDQA3ROxrz6iOYty1307PaY7X7s26di3nCZdkHNrV%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/41bfbfc5-ab76-468f-bf5a-91b2ad91cbe2%40gmail.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-04 Thread Dylan Distasio
Out of curiosity, have you read the full text of the ruling?

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 4:47 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> The liberal Supremes joined the MAGAts in dodging responsibility.  Were
> Confederate officers who previously served in the US Army denied election
> one-by-one by acts of Congress?  I don't think so.  Why is any "action"
> needed unless someone challenges their disqualification on factual grounds.
>
> Brent
>
> On 3/4/2024 11:40 AM, Dylan Distasio wrote:
>
> Even if we allow for the sake of a hypothetical that Trump directly was
> part of an "insurrection,"  states have no authority to make this
> determination around eligibility under the 14th amendment.The
> ruling was unanimous including from liberals on the court who despise
> Trump, and does nothing to ignore the 14th amendment which I'm sure John
> actually realizes.   He just doesn't like the outcome so we've moved on to
> the hyperbole phase.   Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is
> a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind
> of action.   It would have to come from Congress.The Constitution has
> not been violated here and everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put
> personal feelings aside, and did their job.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM howardmarks 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Supreme Court did not ignore the 14th Amendment to the USC. How
>> can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the Capitol,
>> words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to "lawfully
>> protest . . . "?  And, it's doubtful 2nd Amendment will be allowed by the
>> owners of 300 million guns in the US to be ignored.
>>
>> On 3/4/2024 12:58 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore
>> the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on
>> the ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second
>> amendment to the Constitution?
>>
>>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
>> 
>> 4It
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2P5WvhDJg_SEmo0Yp9Q55pWBBi-t5AhFbPSDuQJp%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c36e2f6c-2028-405e-8aff-3f555194ac5b%40doitnow.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH9tzmLkvFRdUVs765OBpGS6r4AESsJa9q72uRhAgM4dFA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/226808d9-362c-4b16-ad49-773102b0757b%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH_jjSgLDNsO5OZPsK8QViSTkWF9rwdcA-sqV%2Bcw01PBPQ%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-04 Thread Brent Meeker
The liberal Supremes joined the MAGAts in dodging responsibility. Were 
Confederate officers who previously served in the US Army denied 
election one-by-one by acts of Congress?  I don't think so. Why is any 
"action" needed unless someone challenges their disqualification on 
factual grounds.


Brent

On 3/4/2024 11:40 AM, Dylan Distasio wrote:
Even if we allow for the sake of a hypothetical that Trump directly 
was part of an "insurrection,"  states have no authority to make this 
determination around eligibility under the 14th amendment.    The 
ruling was unanimous including from liberals on the court who despise 
Trump, and does nothing to ignore the 14th amendment which I'm sure 
John actually realizes.   He just doesn't like the outcome so we've 
moved on to the hyperbole phase.   Whether Trump was actually guilty 
of insurrection is a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on 
a state taking this kind of action.   It would have to come from 
Congress.    The Constitution has not been violated here and everyone 
should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings aside, and did 
their job.






On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM howardmarks  
wrote:


Sorry, Supreme Court did not ignore the 14th Amendment to the USC.
How can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at
the Capitol, words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the
Capital to "lawfully protest . . . "?  And, it's doubtful 2nd
Amendment will be allowed by the owners of 300 million guns in the
US to be ignored.

On 3/4/2024 12:58 PM, John Clark wrote:

Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional
to ignore the 14th amendment to the US Constitutionand allow
Trump to remain on the ballot, would it also be constitutional to
ignore the second amendment to the Constitution?

John K Clark   See what's on my new list at Extropolis

4It

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2P5WvhDJg_SEmo0Yp9Q55pWBBi-t5AhFbPSDuQJp%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com

.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c36e2f6c-2028-405e-8aff-3f555194ac5b%40doitnow.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH9tzmLkvFRdUVs765OBpGS6r4AESsJa9q72uRhAgM4dFA%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/226808d9-362c-4b16-ad49-773102b0757b%40gmail.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-04 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio  wrote:


> *> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from
> a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action.   It
> would have to come from Congress.*
>

Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify that the federal government, not
the states, were the ultimate authority on who committed insurrection and
who did not? Historically, unless the US Constitution said otherwise, the
states were allowed to write their own election laws. For example, Wyoming
gave women the right to vote as early as 1869, but the 19th amendment which
gave all women in all the states the right to vote didn't become law until
1920.  Another example would be the direct election of senators, in 1908
Oregon law said senators would be determined by the popular vote, but that
didn't become universal across the country until 1913 with the passage of
the 17th amendment.

 > *everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings aside,
> and did their job.*


It's absolutely outrageous that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself on
this decision because his wife was part of the mob that attacked the
capital on January 6, 2021. And I do NOT feel good about that because if
that isn't a conflict of interest then what the hell is?

There's something else I don't feel good about. When it comes to a criminal
case that is likely to harm Trump, like deciding if a former president can
be prosecuted for ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival,
the Supreme Court is doing everything in its power to slow down the case
until after the elections because after he becomes president again Trump
will simply make that criminal case against him disappear.

Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential
immunity



But when it comes to a case that could help Trump like this one, then
the supreme court  moves at warp speed. It's stuff like that gives
hypocrisy a bad name.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

thb




> Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore
>> the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on
>> the ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second
>> amendment to the Constitution?
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3yDQA3ROxrz6iOYty1307PaY7X7s26di3nCZdkHNrV%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-04 Thread Dylan Distasio
Even if we allow for the sake of a hypothetical that Trump directly was
part of an "insurrection,"  states have no authority to make this
determination around eligibility under the 14th amendment.The
ruling was unanimous including from liberals on the court who despise
Trump, and does nothing to ignore the 14th amendment which I'm sure John
actually realizes.   He just doesn't like the outcome so we've moved on to
the hyperbole phase.   Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is
a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind
of action.   It would have to come from Congress.The Constitution has
not been violated here and everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put
personal feelings aside, and did their job.





On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM howardmarks  wrote:

> Sorry, Supreme Court did not ignore the 14th Amendment to the USC. How can
> it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the Capitol, words
> to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to "lawfully protest . .
> . "?  And, it's doubtful 2nd Amendment will be allowed by the owners of 300
> million guns in the US to be ignored.
>
> On 3/4/2024 12:58 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore
> the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on
> the ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second
> amendment to the Constitution?
>
>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> 4It
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2P5WvhDJg_SEmo0Yp9Q55pWBBi-t5AhFbPSDuQJp%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c36e2f6c-2028-405e-8aff-3f555194ac5b%40doitnow.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH9tzmLkvFRdUVs765OBpGS6r4AESsJa9q72uRhAgM4dFA%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-04 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM howardmarks  wrote:

*> How can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the
> Capitol, words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to
> "lawfully protest . . . "? *
>

Something like that couldn't be interpreted as an insurrection, but I was
talking about the failed January 6, 2021 coup d'état. And by the way, the
words "trial by combat" and "peacefully" are not usually considered to be
synonyms.

   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tds


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv25ckYK1D%2BLd00EX%2BY8PnggcqGNJOiWKrum7y2CbJwmbw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-04 Thread howardmarks
Sorry, Supreme Court did not ignore the 14th Amendment to the USC. How 
can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the Capitol, 
words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to "lawfully 
protest . . . "?  And, it's doubtful 2nd Amendment will be allowed by 
the owners of 300 million guns in the US to be ignored.


On 3/4/2024 12:58 PM, John Clark wrote:
Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to 
ignore the 14th amendment to the US Constitutionand allow Trump to 
remain on the ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the 
second amendment to the Constitution?


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


4It

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2P5WvhDJg_SEmo0Yp9Q55pWBBi-t5AhFbPSDuQJp%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c36e2f6c-2028-405e-8aff-3f555194ac5b%40doitnow.com.


A question for Trump supporters

2024-03-04 Thread John Clark
Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore
the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on the
ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second amendment to
the Constitution?

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

4It

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2P5WvhDJg_SEmo0Yp9Q55pWBBi-t5AhFbPSDuQJp%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-01-08 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:42 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > And it would be of huge benefit to the Republican party for Trump to be
> disqualified. *
>

If Congress had convicted Trump in either of his impeachment trials he
would've been disqualified from running for president again, and I'm sure
if it had been a secret ballot he would have been convicted because I would
estimate about 80% of Republican elected officials can see the damage that
Trump has caused to the nation and to the world just as clearly as you and
I can. But for them remaining it office is more important than the
existential harm he can cause, and for any Republican elected official being
anti-Trump is political suicide.  And so more likely than not, during the S
ingularity meatgrinder the most powerful human being on Earth will be
Donald J Trump, a man so stupid he doesn't know how to spell AI.

 * The polls say Haley and DeSantis would both do better against Biden than
> does Trump.*


Yes, but unfortunately the polls also say if the election were held today
Trump would still easily beat Biden. And I'll be damned if I understand
why, the Covid pandemic is over, the inflation spike is over, unemployment
is lower than it's been since 1969 and the GDP of the US is growing faster
than any other western nation. It must be Drag Queen Story Time, low flow
toilets, and those damned windmills that cause cancer.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wcc




>
>
> On 1/6/2024 1:06 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> The states of Colorado in Maine want to remove Trump from the presidential
> ballot because of Section 3 of the 14th amendment which  says:
>
> "*No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector
> of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military,
> under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken
> an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or
> as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial
> officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,
> shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given
> aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of
> two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.*"
>
> The case now goes to the Supreme Court, I know that Trump supporters want
> the court to keep Trump on the ballot, but* if it's OK to just ignore the
> 14th amendment, why isn't it also OK to just ignore the second amendment
> and confiscate all your guns?* But the court has never been very good at
> self consistency, and given the makeup of the court at this time I would
> be astonished if it didn't rule in Trump's favor; hell the wife of Justice
> Clarence Thomas was part of the mob that attacked the capital on January 6
>  as they were in the middle of counting the electoral votes to determine
> the next president. That is a clear-cut conflict of interest so if Thomas
> had any ethics he'd recuse himself from voting on this question, but I
> don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of him behaving ethically.
>
>
> 7tt
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2tPYZhH_fKRK0w0utAMO6LT8X8BM8n_Gsr83VWgUgxbw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: A question for Trump supporters

2024-01-07 Thread Brent Meeker
And it would be of huge benefit to the Republican party for Trump to be 
disqualified.  As it is, he's going to pull down some Congressional 
Repugs with him, just like he did in 2020.  The polls say Haley and 
DeSantis would both do better against Biden than does Trump.


Brent

On 1/6/2024 1:06 PM, John Clark wrote:
The states of Colorado in Maine want to remove Trump from the 
presidential ballot because of Section 3 of the 14th amendment which  
says:


"/*No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or 
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or 
military, under the United States*, or under any State, *who*, having 
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of 
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an 
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the 
Constitution of the United States, *shall have engaged in insurrection 
or rebellion *against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies 
thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, 
remove such disability./"


The case now goes to the Supreme Court, I know that Trump supporters 
want the court to keep Trump on the ballot,but*if it's OK to just 
ignore the 14th amendment, why isn't it also OK to just ignore the 
second amendment and confiscate all your guns?* But the court has 
never been very good at self consistency, and given the makeup of the 
court at this time I would be astonished if it didn't rule in Trump's 
favor; hell the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas was part of the mob 
that attacked the capital on January 6as they were in the middle 
of counting the electoral votesto determine the next president. That 
is a clear-cut conflict of interest so if Thomas had any ethics he'd 
recusehimself from votingon this question, but I don't think there's a 
snowball's chance in hell of him behaving ethically.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


7tt


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv26Srw-uLSYAYYiEL7dr4q_JyzZARPOSu9To4UNjEnNBg%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c4eb10d2-92a3-4377-874a-df4699103448%40gmail.com.


A question for Trump supporters

2024-01-07 Thread John Clark
In Illinois since the 1950s red scare it has been traditional for
Republican presidential candidates to sign a loyalty oath swearing not to
try to overthrow the government. Trump signed that oath in 2016 and 2020
(and broke his oath in 2021), but this year he has refused to even sign it.
So unless a miracle happens and the members of the Supreme Court decide to
remain loyal to a different oath that all the justices took, the one that
says they should make decisions based on what the constitution says, it
looks like during the AI Singularity meat grinder the most powerful man in
the world will be an ignorant totalitarian imbecile,..., oh well I
doubt Trump even knows how to spell AI but at least he'll save us from the
horrors of Drag Queen Story Hour, windmills that cause cancer, and low-flow
toilets.

Trump did not sign Illinois’ loyalty oath that says he won’t advocate for
overthrowing the government


 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

jft

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2bQe369ywv90%2BYWx5XfWrU67ni80mOjmgzkNBay62tcQ%40mail.gmail.com.


A question for Trump supporters

2024-01-06 Thread John Clark
The states of Colorado in Maine want to remove Trump from the presidential
ballot because of Section 3 of the 14th amendment which  says:

"*No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of
President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under
the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an
oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as
a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer
of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds
of each House, remove such disability.*"

The case now goes to the Supreme Court, I know that Trump supporters want
the court to keep Trump on the ballot, but* if it's OK to just ignore the
14th amendment, why isn't it also OK to just ignore the second amendment
and confiscate all your guns?* But the court has never been very good at
self consistency, and given the makeup of the court at this time I would be
astonished if it didn't rule in Trump's favor; hell the wife of Justice
Clarence Thomas was part of the mob that attacked the capital on January 6 as
they were in the middle of counting the electoral votes to determine the
next president. That is a clear-cut conflict of interest so if Thomas had
any ethics he'd recuse himself from voting on this question, but I don't
think there's a snowball's chance in hell of him behaving ethically.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

7tt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv26Srw-uLSYAYYiEL7dr4q_JyzZARPOSu9To4UNjEnNBg%40mail.gmail.com.